On August 07 2010 02:26 Froadac wrote:On August 06 2010 06:21 TanGeng wrote:On August 06 2010 05:49 Romantic wrote:
An inherent flaw in [b]capitalism!??[/b[ is that nobody takes into account systemic risk or non-$$$ considerations. Nobody thinks, "Oh when I buy this car taxes will go up to pay for the roads, I'll have to deal with congestion, global warming, drunk driving, noise pollution etc". America was purposefully marketed cars instead of more public transport and thats that. For a shitload of places it simply wouldn't be profitable.
Seriously, it's a flaw with only capitalism!?
That's a limitation of the human mind. People in general don't think beyond, several steps. For cars, of concern are: how much does it costs, where and how can I use it, what are its dangers, what are its comforts. Drunk driving and traffic congestion is factored into the equation. Noise pollution is a function of where you live and work and people pay attention to that. One extra car on the road doesn't add much to the equation.
What is left?
A. Taxes will go up to pay for roads.
Taxes were already leveed to pay for roads. Part of buying the car is a registration fee, which incidentally goes to pay for roads.
B. Global Warming
Exhaust pollution and smog might be an issue. Global warming is still unconvincing.
C. America was purposefully marketed cars.
America was purposefully helped into cars by its sprawling country. Ensenhower and the US interstate system helped along with that.
Public transportation makes sense in the biggest cities. Destroy the suburbs and that'll destroy the need for most cars.
My dad does traffic forecasting, and the environmentalists are always trying to get him to manipulate the reports, to say that if we have dense housing and work that traffic will go down. This is downright incorrect. The more wealthy someone gets the more separated their home and workplace will be. IE not many people want to live in Oakland CA, but tons of corporate people work there. Also, mass transit isn't practical when traveling such distances. Also, the traffic in southern california is awful, but they won't let them put in more roads, as it is argued that this will increase traffic. The answer to this is yes, it will increase traffic marginally, but people will spend less time driving, hence actually improving gas mileage and decreasing CO2 output.
Also, these 'smart growth projects' aren't working, because few people want to live there, they are generally actually quite expensive, and even though they are near businesses and retail, there are other/better businesses retail centers nearby.
Also, high speed rail is a sham. It would have to be heavily subsidized, and although it is more environmentally friendly, SouthWest would be faster and cheaper...
EPT
